Victoria’s Sewage Treatment – P3′s Will Cost Us

The Provincial Government has mandated that the Greater Victoria area stop dumping untreated sewage into the ocean, and build treatment plants instead. This is fine, although I wish we had been able to come to that decision on our own. However, since the project will come in over the mandated $20 million  limit, the government has also informed us that a public private partnership must be looked at very seriously as one of our options.

I have a problem with this.

Despite the hard-on governments and world and regional organizations currently have for the unregulated wilds of the free market, there is absolutely no benefit to us, as consumers or as community members, in letting big business into what will be a mandatory essential service. While I don’t like many aspects of the free market philosophy, and certainly don’t

approve of its undiscriminating application over all economic sectors touted by the economic right, the free market in its place can work quite well. It’s place, however, is not here.

The free market is regulated by competition, and in a case like this, where we are giving the company who wins the bid a multi-decade monopoly, there is no competition. It is, in fact, an impossible situation to compete in at all. Imagine: “I think I’ll send my sewage to plant B, I like their rates.” “Well, I just switched from plant A to plant C because plant A was unreliable.” It can’t happen.

It is a prevailing myth that private companies are invariably cheaper and more efficient than their public counterparts.I say myth because this isn’t so. Yes, there are examples where this is the case, but there are also many examples where the opposite is true.

The United States boasts both publicly and privately run sewage treatment plants across the country. An examination of data from over 1000 plants showed that private plants were invariably between 13% and 50% more expensive than public plants, and despite higher rates did not offer better service. For details, click here.

Why is this?

Let’s look at it logically. If you take two plants, offering identical services, with pretty much identical equipment, how do you make one plant cheaper than the other? If you assume identical quality of service, you can’t. Then, factor in financing. A portion of the money needed to build and run large projects like this will be borrowed, because even governments and large corporations dont have spare tens and hundreds of millions lying around.

Governments can borrow money at better interest rates than private companies because they are a lot less risky. Private companies can go under, but even if the people in it changes a government will still be there.

Therefore, governments get around 2-3% better interest rates than private companies do. This may not seem like much, but over the project’s lifetime, that 2-3% means that the private company pays 50-80% more than the government would. How does the company make back that money? Higher rates.

Then, of course, there is profit. If businesses were in it for the people, they wouldn’t be businesses. They’d be charities. Non-profits. Volunteer organizations. They aren’t. No matter what the PR guys say, businesses are in it for the money. They want to make a lot of it, and if they don’t, they either go bankrupt, or they just walk away from a bad investment, leaving us to pick up the pieces. How do they make that money, again granting them the same plant and service quality as that of government providing? Raise the rates.

The provincial government is very heavily in favour of P3′s, and this is partly because it makes their year-end budget look good. The hefty start-up costs of large projects are removed from their books and dumped on someone else’s.  The cost of a project like this, however, doesn’t end with the start-up cost, and in trying to lighten their financial burden, the government is adding to ours.

I don’t want to pay more money so some CEO can add another yacht to his collection. I would far rather keep our community’s sewage system public and have the money I pay go back into the community.

Please, tell your council members to say no to a P3 sewage treatment system.

There are many disadvantages to privatizing our sewage treatment plants. Check back here for more on the subject, and check out the Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition’s website and the CRD’s wastewater treatment site.

Books of the Week: Inside the Not So Big House and Outside the Not So Big House

Buy Inside or Outside on Amazon. You can look inside the books.

Check out Sarah Susanka`s website.

I got these books for Christmas (well, using a Christmas gift certificate, anyway), and I spent a very enjoyable evening today going through them. I am quite interested in architecture and design, and have often been irked by the poor quality and indifferent design of many modern houses. I include the house I am living in now in this, as until a couple months ago, our kitchen was literally a hallway with a stove and some counters.

Author Sara Susanka, with design writer Mark Vassallo for Inside and landscape designer Julie Moir Messervy for Outside, explores the idea of turning a house into a functional, comfortable home.

The Not So Big philosophy is to `build better, not bigger.` It is about using the space you have, and making the space you have work for you. Susanka believes that each space in a home should be functional, if not multifunctional, and used every day. this means making each space somewhere where you want to be, and where you can do the things you want to do.

The idea of `home`includes not just indoor space but outdoor as well, and the two areas of a home should be a unified whole that transition smoothly form one to the other.

Home should be beautiful.

The idea behind the books is that of quality over quantity, and each book includes photographs of the interior or landscape of over twenty homes, with notes on what works, why it works, and how you can apply this to your own space.

The only problem is that I now have a serious case of house envy. Ah well, back to my basement suite, and on to bed.

Good night, and good reading.

Selling BC

The BC Provincial Government has recently been turning more and more  to public-private partnerships (P3′s), which take the responsibility of building or running a project off its hands, but also take away  control. P3′s exist under the guise of a compromise between the public and private option,with part of the responsibility held by the government and part by the private company.

The BC Liberals have been indulging in P3 deals to the extent that BC is one of only two places listed in the ‘Specific Cases” section of the Wikipedia article above. (The other is Australia).

The BC Liberals claim that P3`s control cost, transfer risk from the public to the private companies, get better value for money spent, keep BC out of debt, and are more efficient.

However, private companies not only get far worse loan rates than governments do, they have to factor a profit into their expenses, thus making it impossible for private organisations to finish with lower costs than public ones.

While the risk is transferred to the private sector, the gain is transferred too, as is control. P3 contracts tend to be huge, encompassing the entire project in a single bid. This means that the smaller, local contractors are extremely outclassed, and the bids then go to huge multinational corporations, who often even bring in their own workers, so that local jobs are lost, and the money gained from the project moves out of the area and does not in any significant way go back into the community it gets it from.

The last time the BC government decided to favour big contractors over local industry was when they introduced the tree-farm system and gave away crown land to large lumber companies in multi-decade contracts. That worked….

Privately-run projects are less transparent than government-run ones, and far more potential for corruption, cutting corners, safety and environmental hazards and unfair labour practices exist. If the bottom line is profit, priorities tend to get a little skewed.

I`ve posted a link at the bottom of the post to a video by Blair Redlin of CUPE. I highly recommend you watch it (start 20 minutes in). He covers all these topics in depth, with power point to boot. It is longish, but fascinating.

By allowing private companies to gain a measure of control in an area they didn’t have access to before opens the door for full privatization.

This is less than stellar because the bottom line for private organizations is profit, and in many venues this can directly interfere with providing a service. If the operation involved provides some sort of essential or important service, than people who can’t afford the service won’t get it.

My point really is that the two sides look at the same issue through opposite sides of the lens. Private industry views it as a service provided to make money; government views it as money raised to provide a service. It is much more beneficial to the public if, regarding an essential service especially, the priority is on the service rather than the money.

If a privately-run service is run for profit, that profit goes to only one or a few individuals. Oftentimes these individuals are not even from the area. Public sector profit goes right back into the community to help fund that or other services.

The only reason that I can see for the Campbell government to make such a push for the P3 method is the kickbacks and support they would receive from the companies, and the lawyers involved in the lengthy negotiations. These would have to be substantial, because in making this push the BC Liberals have alienated the entire provincial construction sector, who are losing out on contracts they would previously have received, and were formerly very vocal Campbell supporters.

Further Reading:

• Construction Industry’s Case Against P3s
• P3 COSTS SKYROCKET
• Public interest compromised by government`s pursuit of `P3s`
• Flawed, Failed, Abandoned: 100 P3s – Canadian and International Evidence

A video – it`s long but tune in at 20 min in for a breakdown of the P3 flaws. I highly recomend it.

Book of the Week: Economics for Everyone: A Short Guide to the Economics of Capitalism

Buy the book on Amazon.

Check out the book’s website.

I will confess that this week i’m reviewing a book I haven’t had a chance to finish yet. However, I have so far found it to be an interesting and informative read.

Jim Sanford is fairly left-wing, and the book reflects that. I myself do support perhaps a change in the current North American way of getting on with things, although I do find Sanford’s assumption that this change for the better will just happen spontaneously kind of odd. I suppose I have too little faith in the better side of humanity.

The book was written to introduce laymen (like me) to the concept of economics and its relation to everyday life, without resorting to trade terms and mathematics. The neoclassical theory of economics that is currently taught and practiced by most economists  is just one theory, not the only right way, and Sanford’s goal is to broaden people’s perspectives.

The twelve key points about capitalism and economics Sanford wants people to take away are (and here I am both quoting and giving away the end of the book):

1. The economy depends on social relationships, not just technical relationships, and (like society) it evolves and changes over time.
2. Economics is an inherently subjective, value-laden, political discipline.
3. Productive human activity is the only force that adds value to the resources we harvest from nature.
4. Using tools makes work more productive.
5. In capitalism, most work consists of employment.
6. Unpaid work is also important.
7. Competition is a central feature of capitalism, and forces companies to behave in certain ways.
8. The condition of the natural environment is crucial to our prosperity.
9. The financial industry is not, in itself, productive.
10. Government has played a central, supporting role since the beginning of capitalism.
11. Globalization can strengthen an economy, or it can weaken an economy.
12. Workers and poor people get only as much from the economy as they are able to demand, fight for, and win.

That was just a taste, and if you want an in depth explanation of those points, well hey, read the book.

Knowledge is power, and the more we know, the more we can do. If you are interested in learning more about economics I would recommend this book, although if you already have a solid working knowledge I don’t know how useful you’ll find it. You don’t have to agree with all Sanford’s opinions, to get something from Economics for Everyone (that’s what critical thinking is for, folks), but if you’re interested in the way the world works, and the ways it could work better, check it out.

Scalping – A VANOC Fundraiser

You may have heard about the new scalping site set up by the Vancouver Olympics Committee to facilitate  ticket resale and prevent unauthorised ticket sales.

Scalping is not illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada, as every article I’ve read on the VANOC site makes sure to point out.

VANOC states that it created the site to:

• try to put a body in every seat, which is fair,
• prevent scalpers from standing around outside events selling tickets at exorbitant prices (although there is no cap on on ticket pricing on the ‘fan-to-fan marketplace’ , so it will look better at the venues but not prevent buyers from being fleeced)
• send “an easy, clear message to consumers where they can go for legitimate tickets,” according to Caley Denton, VANOC vice-president of ticketing and consumer marketing.

Now, only tickets that have been purchased on the official website in the first place are allowed to be resold on the official website. This offers protection for buyers from fraudulent sales. However, in the Terms of Use, VANOCdisclaims any liability for pretty much anything to do with the site and the uses it’s put to, so it’s still an imperfect system.

There are two types of scalpers. One type is the people who find themselves unable to attend an event and simply want to recap their losses by selling their ticket to someone else. The other is a person or organisation who buys up a massive quantity of tickets the instant they go on sale with the intent to resell at a profit.

This second type of scalper is the main problem for people who want to attend events, as they often have no chance to get their tickets at posted price because they are beaten to the punch by these resellers.  VANOC had an opportunity to curb this misuse of the system and they didn’t take it. I can only assume that this was done in the name of profit.

VANOC charges 10% commission on both the buyer and the seller, 20% in total, and all the proceeds go to VANOC. This is on top of the agreed-upon price, by the way, not taken out of it.

Charging a handling fee is fine, as it does cost money to provide the site, and the security it offers i would say is worth an extra fee. Some might prefer to take the risk of buying a dud ticket to avoid the fee, but charging it is legitimate and reasonable. However, refusing to cap resale prices can only mean more profit for VANOC, and opens up a score of opportunities for scalping-for-profit.

The same Mr Denton quoted above says that creating the system took ”an amazing amount of work and a ton of detail. We don’t expect to make any money off it.”

Now, this is where I raise my sceptical eyebrow. The technology on the site is really not all that revolutionary. It’s possible that the site was prohibitively expensive to make, but I doubt it. Also, a 20%  fee is quite substantial, especially when there is no cap on the prices people can charge.

VANOC executive member Dave Cobb said,”We prefer if prices that are posted[were] low, but we were prepared to sacrifice our control over that to have a place for people to buy legitimate tickets, with a primary goal of seats being full for the Games.”

I say bullcrap. If you really want the seats full, it would be much more to your advantage to keep the prices affordable. There is no reason why doing so would sacrifice your ability to provide the site in the first place.

If it really had the best interests of the consumers in mind, the least VANOC could do would have been to take steps to prevent scalping for profit. In theory, this was the purpose for which the site was created in the first place.

Since it didn’t do so, and since according to the terms and conditions attached to the tickets, if it catches someone trying to sell tickets on other sites such as Craigslist and Ebay it can invalidate the ticket and I believe is doing so, thereby allowing no alternate sales venues, I can only assume that this is simply an attempt to make VANOC a little extra cash.

Scalping – A VANOC Fundraiser

You may have heard about the new scalping site set up by the Vancouver Olympics Committee to facilitate  ticket resale and prevent unauthorised ticket sales.

Scalping is not illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada, as every article I’ve read on the VANOC site makes sure to point out.

VANOC states that it created the site to:

• try to put a body in every seat, which is fair,
• prevent scalpers from standing around outside events selling tickets at exorbitant prices (although there is no cap on on ticket pricing on the ‘fan-to-fan marketplace’ , so it will look better at the venues but not prevent buyers from being fleeced)
• send “an easy, clear message to consumers where they can go for legitimate tickets,” according to Caley Denton, VANOC vice-president of ticketing and consumer marketing.

Now, only tickets that have been purchased on the official website in the first place are allowed to be resold on the official website. This offers protection for buyers from fraudulent sales. However, in the Terms of Use, VANOC disclaims any liability for pretty much anything to do with the site and the uses it’s put to, so it’s still an imperfect system.

There are two types of scalpers. One type is the people who find themselves unable to attend an event and simply want to recap their losses by selling their ticket to someone else. The other is a person or organisation who buys up a massive quantity of tickets the instant they go on sale with the intent to resell at a profit.

This second type of scalper is the main problem for people who want to attend events, as they often have no chance to get their tickets at posted price because they are beaten to the punch by these resellers.  VANOC had an opportunity to curb this misuse of the system and they didn’t take it. I can only assume that this was done in the name of profit.

VANOC charges 10% commission on both the buyer and the seller, 20% in total, and all the proceeds go to VANOC. This is on top of the agreed-upon price, by the way, not taken out of it.

Charging a handling fee is fine, as it does cost money to provide the site, and the security it offers i would say is worth an extra fee. Some might prefer to take the risk of buying a dud ticket to avoid the fee, but charging it is legitimate and reasonable. However, refusing to cap resale prices can only mean more profit for VANOC, and opens up a score of opportunities for scalping-for-profit.

The same Mr Denton quoted above says that creating the system took ”an amazing amount of work and a ton of detail. We don’t expect to make any money off it.”

Now, this is where I raise my sceptical eyebrow. The technology on the site is really not all that revolutionary. It’s possible that the site was prohibitively expensive to make, but I doubt it. Also, a 20%  fee is quite substantial, especially when there is no cap on the prices people can charge.

VANOC executive member Dave Cobb said,”We prefer if prices that are posted [were] low, but we were prepared to sacrifice our control over that to have a place for people to buy legitimate tickets, with a primary goal of seats being full for the Games.”

I say bullcrap. If you really want the seats full, it would be much more to your advantage to keep the prices affordable. There is no reason why doing so would sacrifice your ability to provide the site in the first place.

If it really had the best interests of the consumers in mind, the least VANOC could do would have been to take steps to prevent scalping for profit. In theory, this was the purpose for which the site was created in the first place.

Since it didn’t do so, and since according to the terms and conditions attached to the tickets, if it catches someone trying to sell tickets on other sites such as Craigslist and Ebay it can invalidate the ticket and I believe is doing so, thereby allowing no alternate sales venues, I can only assume that this is simply an attempt to make VANOC a little extra cash.

Back from the Holidays

Happy Holidays all, and I hope you had a wonderful season, and got to spend some time with the important people in your lives.

Making Waves is back and going strong, since the hectic holiday season is over, and i have a few spare moments to type once more.

Full speed ahead for the new year!

B.C. – The Windy Province?

With the approval of three wind turbine sites in British Columbia, the province is heading down the road to non-oil dependant, internally sourced power.

In typical BC Liberals fashion, the three sites will be run by privately owned companies – a different company for each site.

The Dokie Wind Farm Project in the Peace River region is a slightly older project that originally went bankrupt, but was bought by General Electric, a multinational American company, and the Plutonic Power Corporation, a Vancouver-based, Canadian company.  Phase One of the project, which involves 48 80-metre turbine towers on a ridge near Chetwynd (northeastern BC), will resume construction in the spring.

The Thunder Mountain project, run by the Aeolis Wind Power Corporation, a Sidney-based, Canadian company, will be located on two ridges southeast of Tumbler Ridge, B.C..

The NaiKun Wind Project will be Canada’s first offshore wind project, located in Hecate Strait, between Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii. The project will be developed and built by the NaiKun Wind Energy Group, in partnership with Alberta’s ENMAX and the Haida.

Wind power produces no greenhouse gas emissions in their operation, although during the construction phase production and transportation of materials do. On offshore turbines, it currently takes turbines about nine months of operation to counter the emissions used in their production.

Wind farms are dependent on the activity level of the wind where they are placed, and so they cannot run at peak production levels all the time. Because of this the electricity they provide can be sporadic. As such, they are not a good primary source of energy. Rather, they can offer supplementary electricity to a system that gets its primary power elsewhere.

The environmental problems associated with wind farms include danger to birds and bats flying into the turbines. Several bat species are most affected at certain times of the year (spring and autumn), while they are migrating. Bats are killed either by running into the turbines, towers or transmission lines, or by getting caught in the pockets of low air pressure created by the rotating blades (this fatally damages their lungs).

However, bats are most active during times with low wind activity, so effects on populations can be lessened by stopping the turbines at these times, when they would be least productive anyway. Bats are only affected by onshore or near shore farms. Turbines placed farther out to sea have no effect on bats.

Offshore farms can affect the ocean life, though, through leaking oil or hydraulic fluid dripped off the spinning blades.

Birds are also killed by collisions with wind towers, although studies say that compared to the effect of other human activities including using unclean energy sources, these deaths are negligible. The farms can also affect bird nesting sites if the farms are too close. This is especially bad for endangered populations. The best way to guard against these effects is to pay attention to site placement.

All three of these farms have passed environmental assessments. You can find the environmental studies and the steps each project plans to take to prevent or mitigate damage through the sites linked to their names, or, more directly, here:

• Dokie
• Thunder Mountain This one just links to the page that links to the various sections – it’s not just one document.
• NaiKun (starts on page 55, page 78 if you want to skip the background and process explanations).

Other possibly negative effects of wind farms are that they are noisy, and some people think they are ugly to look at.  They are widely used around the world, though, with the European Union at the top of the list. The single country with the greatest wind energy production capacity is actually the U.S.A..

The fact that the B.C. Government is forwarding the cause of cleaner energy I think is great. Despite my long list of potential negative effects, I think that clean energy is a very good idea, and the environmental damage caused by our fossil fuel use and its extraction is not only terrible for the planet but an embarrassment to humanity.

Furthermore, finding ways to supply energy independence for ourselves and other countries would take away a lot of the political and military tension associated with oilfield control (and attempts to gain it).

Knowing the potential environmental impact of these projects is no bad thing. It is merely the first step in ensuring that these effects are dealt with and countered.

Further Reading

Wikipedia:

• Wind Farms
• Wind Power
• Environmental Effects of Wind Power

The B.C. Government on climate change and B.C..

The David Suzuki Foundation on climate change and B.C..

B.C. Citizens for Green Energy – a non-profit group “encouraging a legacy of clean, renewable electricity for future generations.”

Going Local, Part Two; Shopping for Local Food

Locally grown and raised food is by far more sustainable than mass-produced, chemically treated factory farm food shipped thousands of miles to your grocery store. Furthermore, food raised without harmful chemicals and pesticides is far healthier for you both in terms of the chemicals that end up in your body and the nutrients you get from the food – both vegetable and animal.

One way to eat more local food is to grow your own, as discussed in Part One.

The second way to eat more local food is to support your local farmers and the stores and markets that stock their products. This allows you to eat better without getting dirty and having to touch worms and slugs and caterpillars and such.

Furthermore, supporting local food producers helps create and keep jobs in your community, both in themselves and in the services they use. Their tax dollars and yours stay in the community as well, and go toward projects that will directly benefit you.

Keeping things local also helps  keep our communities and neighborhoods unique and full of the individual character of the people who live there. Local farms and farmers are more directly dependent on you as the consumer, and are far more willing to listen to your feedback, concerns and suggestions than the big box stores and national or international chains.

On the other hand, though, talking to your local grocery, bakery or butcher about what you would like to see in the store can have a big impact. Asking for more local food, especially if you continue to bring it up, and if your voice is one of many, can result in…more local food in your grocery, bakery or butcher’s. Restaurants are also excellent places to open that dialogue. Local stores or chains tend to respond better and more quickly than larger chains, but it is always beneficial to put your voice out there. It’s a matter of supply and demand. If we demand, they will supply.

A Selection of Local Groceries:

• The Market on Yates (or Millstream) carries local produce, but pay attention because not all their produce is local or organic, and some organic produce is imported.
• Wildfire Bakery (no website. 1517 Quadra St) is an amazing bakery that uses local, organic, heirloom grains and produce.
• Pepper’s Foods carries some local or local and organic produce, as well as dairy, eggs, some meats and fish.
• For Good Measure is a bulk store that supplies some local food, including Babe’s honey, local eggs every Friday, and whole wheat flour made from island grown wheat (not organic, unfortunately, but hey).
• The Village Family Marketplace on Pandora is a new addition to the Victoria scene.
• Planet Organic supplies local produce, dairy and eggs. Although not everything they offer is local, it is all organic.
• Ambrosio Markets have a lot of great local produce, including local nuts. Their webpage is www.ambrosiomarkets.ca, but I can”t get the link to work for me. You might have better luck.

OR

• Find a Farmer’s Market near you.

OR

• Order your groceries for delivery or pick-up through Share Organics or (produce only) Saanich Organics if you live in Saanich or Victoria.

Book of the Week: If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer

Buy the book in Amazon.

The Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.

This is not officially a social commentary book, but it is nevertheless  an interesting commentary on our society and a legal system in which a person can be exonerated for a crime and then publish a statement of guilt without consequences.

For anyone who doesn’t wish to support Mr. Simpson with the purchase of his book, the rights actually belong to the Goldman family, whose son Ron was the other victim in the murder. Mr. Simpson was found guilty of the murders in civil court, and the book rights were awarded the family to help pay the settlements. Part of the proceeds go to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.

The premise O.J. gives for the book is that it is a hypothetical confession of what might have happened if he had perhaps actually committed the murders. The only indication of this in the text is at the point when the hypothetical “Charlie” appears, just before O.J. goes over to Nicole’s on the night of the murder.

It reads: “Now picture this – and keep in mind, this is hypothetical.”

That’s all.

With no break in the narrative, O.J. then goes on to describe the events leading up to and following the murder, with a convenient blackout during the actual killings.

The “hypothetical” portion of the book ends after he showers off the blood, with the paragraph:

I hurried back upstairs, to finish dressing, with my heart still beating like crazy. I could feel it in my ears, and against my temples, but as I looked around I couldn’t understand what I was so worked up about. I took a deep breath and told myself, The last hour was just a nightmare. None of that ever goddamn happened.

With that, and again with no break in the narrative, O.J. is innocent again, and suitably stunned when the police call him to tell him Nicole is dead.

The book is an easy read, if not brilliant literature. It is written by ghost writer Pablo F. Fenjives, whose house shared a back alley with Nicole’s, and who testified at O.J.’s trial.

Along with the main text, the book contains the short piece, “He Did It,” by the Goldman family, a prologue by Mr. Fenjives about his experience writing the book and interviewing O.J., and an afterward by Dominick Dunne,  who covered the Simpson trial for Vanity Fair and wrote a book about it: Another City Not My Own.

Dunne passed away August 26, 2009.

As I said, the book itself is not a brilliant piece of literature, but it is an interesting look inside O.J. Simpson’s head, as long as you remember to take everything he says with a grain of salt. The fact that he believes that he can publish a piece like this and get away with it, and the way he creates excuses and tries to shape the facts to suit himself I find fascinating. If you are interested in criminal psychology at all, read this book.